My HD no longer has the regular CREE 60w and 40w on sale. Instead they have the TW series Cree that supposed has better light but costs $2-3 more than the regular ones on sale ($8 and $10 for the TWones).

Can anyone comment on the difference who has used or seen both? (I currently have a few regular 2700K cree)

I did not know they took them. When the other cfls go, I guess I will try there.

They say the CFLs are supposed to last a long time. I for sure have NOT had that experience. Could it be because most of the circuits are dimmable? The landlord did buy the dimmable bulbs (he warned me when I moved in that using non-dimmable cfls can cause fires (if used dimmable circuits)).

I put the Cree next to real 60 watt soft white bulb and I really had a hard time seeing any difference in color. I have had it for about a week and so far so good. Still wish it was cheaper.

Many CFL retail locations do recycle them and Google can probably find you a recycler much closer than 25 miles.

CFL lifespans are a tricky topic. Their rated lifespan comes from turning them on for 3 hours at a time in laboratory conditions. Other than the quality of parts used to construct them (most common failure point is probably capacitors used in the ballast), temperature variances and frequent power cycling are probably the big killers of CFLs. If you store them and use them around normal room temperatures and leave them turned on for 15 minutes, you will probably extend their lives.

Your landlord is absolutely correct and no normal CFl should ever be used attached to a dimmer. Dimmable CFLs are typically very expensive, so you might want to suggest replacing them with LEDs as they fail (probably the same upfront cost, with much better lifespan and reduced energy costs).

I have a whole bunch of these around the house and for the most part they are awesome however....recently i decided to get 2 of them for my garage ( daylight colored ) and with them installed and ON i'm practically unable to close or open garage door via wireless remote in my car. Before i had CFLs installed and no problems whatsoever but it took forever for them to warm up so switched to these LEDs but they are problematic interfering with wireless openers.
if the lights are off and i get home, when use remote in a car it will work no problem but once they are ON they screw the signal so be aware of this.

"..Electromagnetic Interference or EMI mitigation inevitably increases the overall cost of products by adding additional components to a design, or requiring a more complicated and expensive design and layout, and for low price consumer electronics, with very small profit margins, every penny counts. As EMI mitigation is considered by some as an unnecessary expense, it is often overlooked or simply disregarded. Proper operation and safety concerns also make engineering a quiet design more difficult and expensive. So the cheaper LED lighting will potentially be the most problematic in terms of interference, but they will also be the preferred choice for the average consumer, and therefore the most prevalent. Couple the added costs with the lack of regulatory enforcement and oversight governing the EMI of these devices and you can see the potential problem this poses. Most of the interference may be caused by very high frequency emissions, typically in the 30 – 300 MHz range, and possibly higher..."

My HD no longer has the regular CREE 60w and 40w on sale. Instead they have the TW series Cree that supposed has better light but costs $2-3 more than the regular ones on sale ($8 and $10 for the TWones).

Can anyone comment on the difference who has used or seen both? (I currently have a few regular 2700K cree)

TW gives off a slightly different light spectrum designed to make colors appear more vibrant (the actual difference is in the phosphor coating of the LED, I think). Otherwise it is the same bulb. The effect of TW bulbs is like that of GE reveal bulbs and whether or not you should use them is a matter of personal preference. There's reviews of them floating around. Personally, I haven't seen the Cree TWs, but I happen to like the old GE reveal incandescents (for general purpose/common area lighting).

The math is pretty simple and provided above. I appreciate your effort to keep this conversation civil and I understand it's esoteric and complex and therefore time consuming to participate in. I would, however, assert that the value proposition of this product is not the same as other LEDs you may have compared. This bulb and the $10 Philips bulb have broken cost barriers. They will not win on costs in all cases, but they are competitive and will win as many as they lose. And if you happen to live somewhere that they are subsidized, they are an excellent value.

I have compared these LEDs and the result still favors CFL for me (by similar margin as your # favoring LED) My bulbs are rated for 10,000 and 12,000 hrs. not 8000. The dollar store CFL bulbs are not utility subsidized and you really should not compare what happened in Aus. to show they are, the USA is a totally different market.. Are you saying that LED are not "subsidized" (however yon would like to define subsidy) as much (if not more) than CFL?

I have compared these LEDs and the result still favors CFL for me (by similar margin as your # favoring LED) My bulbs are rated for 10,000 and 12,000 hrs. not 8000. The dollar store CFL bulbs are not utility subsidized and you really should not compare what happened in Aus. to show they are, the USA is a totally different market.. Are you saying that LED are not "subsidized" (however yon would like to define subsidy) as much (if not more) than CFL?

I fully admit that I would pay more (and have done so) for LEDs, by the way, because I think they're a better product. On the subject of cost, it's going to vary between everyone on this forum. CFL subsidies are frequently invisible and provided directly to the retailer, distributor or even the manufacturer of the CFL, but the plain fact of the matter is that a CFL cannot be produced and shipped to the US for those prices, much less make a profit at retail. I compare to Australia because it has a clear example of subsidized costs vs. non-subsidized costs in an economy very similar to our own, but we can both agree that this is an academic point for most people because buying a subsidized CFL won't make a noticeable impact in your own pocket. I only bring up the subsidies here because it's a factor that changes for different people in different locations.

The deal posted in this thread ($8 price tag) is an example of an LED subsidy, but governments in many places don't move as fast and have not subsidized this bulb (even in many places with CFL subsidies). At the $8 price tag using the national average (according to the EIA) of $0.12/kWh, this bulb costs $11 less to operate for 25,000 hours, which means you'd have to pay most people $3 to break even using the CFLs to replace it (regardless of whether they last 6000, 8000, 12000 or 75 hours, I don't see anyone offering to pay me to install CFLs).

Felt like this needed more explanation. Dollar stores frequently take on excess inventory from other retailers at a loss to the original retailer, which is a form of subsidy in itself. That original inventory could have come from anywhere and could have already been subsidized, even by taxpayers from another state, because of how these subsidy programs are set up. Unless you can trace the entire supply chain for these products, it's impossible to say how they're subsidized, but if you really believe you can make these bulbs for pennies, I encourage you to do so and make a killing selling them in Australia. I can't even buy them that cheap where I live.

Fair enough, I suppose, but personally I'm thinking it would be worth it if I could find someone in VT or WA to mail me some light bulbs. $5 is a lot better than my $13-14 and the difference would easily cover shipping.

Much less than a president that signed it into law. If it was going to get pushed him anyways, why not stick to your principles and refuse? Doesn't matter one way or another. So stop the revisionist history. Bush signed it because he wanted to.

And it's the republicans that blame THIS president for dictating what bulbs they can use. They are a little slow so they might still think that Bush is still the president. No other rationale would explain it.

You don't have any understanding of politics if you actually believe that. Even if Bush wanted this law, he couldn't have made it happen without hundreds of Congressmen and Senators to do the actual work for him. And the ones who did that work included the sitting President.

Quote
from sunnysidescape
:

If it was going to get pushed him anyways, why not stick to your principles and refuse? Doesn't matter one way or another. So stop the revisionist history. Bush signed it because he wanted to.

Because by compromising with the Democrats he was sticking to his principles (that elections have consequences) and was able to use that compromise as leverage to modify what he felt were the worst parts of the bill. The only revisionist history here is you claiming Bush wanted this law. If so, why didn't he propose it? Why wasn't it passed by a Republican Congress? And if Bush is in bed with oil money, why would he want a law which Democrats claim has a direct and negative effect on oil profits? Why bother with logic when you can just blame Bush?

It's funny that you're now saying Bush should have fought tooth and nail against every measure he disagreed with when Democrats did nothing but pillory him for being partisan while he was in office.

Quote
from sunnysidescape
:

And it's the republicans that blame THIS president for dictating what bulbs they can use. They are a little slow so they might still think that Bush is still the president. No other rationale would explain it.

Since this President voted for it and belongs to the party that wrote and passed the law, he bears as much responsibility for it as anyone else (and more responsibility than the previous President who didn't veto it). Denial of this fact makes it clear that your only concerns are partisan ones and that you're at least as ignorant as the crazy old bat from Home Depot. But then that was obvious the second you resorted to the "revisionist history" talking point.

Since this President voted for it and belongs to the party that wrote and passed the law, he bears as much responsibility for it as anyone else (and more responsibility than the previous President who didn't veto it). Denial of this fact makes it clear that your only concerns are partisan ones and that you're at least as ignorant as the crazy old bat from Home Depot. But then that was obvious the second you resorted to the "revisionist history" talking point.

You mean the bill signed into law by Bush? Being pretty partisan aren't you?

You mean the bill signed into law by Bush? Being pretty partisan aren't you?

Yes, I mean the law President Bush signed because he realized it was likely inevitable and that by not being obstinate about it he could use his cooperation to gain some leverage. This is extremely common behavior for a President whose party is not in control of the legislative branch of government. Please remind me what role it is that the legislative branch is supposed to perform again? Oh, right, they're the people we refer to as "lawmakers."

You lost any and all credibility on this topic with the following statement:

Quote
from sunnysidescape
:

Obama had nothing to do with

Since this is blatantly false, it leaves only two possible conclusions:

1) you are completely ignorant of the topic; or
2) you are lying in an attempt at political manipulation.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt by selecting option #1 (because it's the polite thing to do in a debate like this), however, the harder you press the issue without admitting you're wrong, the more likely any unbiased observer is to believe it's #2. There's a pithy saying about what you should do when you find yourself in a hole that would apply here, but, please be my guest and continue arguing.

This Thread is more than 442 days old. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.If you still feel it is necessary to make a new reply you may do so.
I am aware that this Thread is rather old but I still want to make a reply.

Found a Deal?
Slickdeals is able to share the best deals because of the contributions of users like you! If you found a great deal,
please share it with others by posting in our forums.

First Time?
Welcome to Slickdeals!
Save money here by finding the lowest and cheapest price, best deals and bargains, and hot coupons. We're all about
community driven bargain hunting with thousands of free discounts, promo codes, reviews and price comparisons.

Don't worry, we'll help you find your way. If you haven't already, check out this
user guide
that explains the features of our site.